Circumcision....discuss?

[TumbledLove]

Circumcision's Effects & Consequences

The prepuce is not just a piece of skin, and it is not a separate part of the penis. The prepuce is an integral part of the normal, natural skin system of the penis. It is an extremely complex structure, and an organ of highly specialized functionality. When the foreskin is amputated, nerves, glands, and other tissue structures that comprise the prepuce, are amputed along with the 'foreskin'.

 

[Gord]

Who knew that little flap of skin could cause so much fuss?

yeah , I have thought that - why has this and the previous thread got me so riled up to post

Maybe it is because circumcision is so alien to our culture here in the UK - the % of boys having the procedure is very low - less than 10% i think - well at least there and there abouts

I have tried to be impartial and listen to the argument - but no I have a son and there is no way in hell I would have let that happen to him - not a chance

It has got me going though !!

 

[TumbledLove]

3x5 foreskin example:

 

[zipman]

there does seem to be an awful lot of sites out there with people fucking pissed off about being circumsised as a baby , a lot of people -

I dont know people are quick to condem tumbledlove as some sort of idiot or loony , because he happens to be a bit fucked up about what happened .

I dont see many websites or pressure groups from people who got penile cancer wishing they had been circumsised as a child


I dont think I have posted so much on one subject here -

the whole think just seems abhorrent to me sorry

Hey Gord, I respect your right to your opinion and anyone else's as well.

Personally, I think anyone with Penile cancer has bigger things to worry about than blogging about why they weren't circumcised.

As for the plethora of people who are pissed off about being circumcised, I think the majority of them would have some other gripe about life that is the cause of their problems and misery.

But don't make the mistake of thinking penile cancer is the only problem that results from lack of circumcision.

Let's not forget the following also:
Phimosis: This is generally regarded as narrowing of the foreskin orifice so as to prevent retraction of the foreskin over the glans. Phimosis is normal in very young boys, but is gone by age 3 in 90%. If still present after age 6 it is regarded as a problem. Phimosis affects at least 10% of uncircumcised males, the reported rates being.

Paraphimosis: This is when the retracted foreskin cannot be brought back again over the glans and is a very painful problem, relieved by circumcision or slitting the dorsal surface of the foreskin.

Frenular chordee This results from an unusually thick and often tight frenulum and prevents the foreskin from fully retracting, being present in a quarter of all uncircumcised males [110]. The frenulum then tears during intercourse or masturbation. Since scar tissue is generally more fragile and less elastic than normal tissue, the tear often re-occurs causing pain, bleeding and is an impediment to sexual activity. This problem can be solved by excising the frenulum during a circumcision. Frenoplasty (removing just the tight frenulum) is also possible.

Balanitis and posthitis: To paediatric surgeons, the most obvious medical reasons for circumcision are balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin). Both are very painful conditions. The latter is limited to uncircumcised males. Balanitis is seen in 11-13% of uncircumcised men, but in only 2% of those who are circumcised [85, 155]. In uncircumcised diabetic men it is 35% [155]. In boys the incidence of balanitis is twice as high in those who are uncircumcised [97, 126].

Penile skin diseases also include psoriasis, those arising from penile infections , lichen sclerosis, lichen planus, schorrheic dermatitis, and Zoon balanitis. The various conditions have been extensively reviewed [80, 155] and are either much more common in, or totally confined to, uncircumcised males. For example, all patients with plasma cell (Zoon) balanitis, bowenoid papulosis, and non-specific balanoposthitis were uncircumcised [178]. Mycobacterium smegmatis has been implicated Zoon balanitis [80]. Typical symptoms of the latter include erythrema (in 100%), swelling (in 91%), discharge (in 73%), dysuria (in 13%), bleeding (in 2%) and ulceration (in 1%)


Infections of the urinary tract (UTI) are regarded as being common in the pediatric population [157]. The highest prevalence and greatest severity of UTIs is prior to 6 months of age [258, 317]. The association of UTI with lack of circumcision is unequivocal. Most of the evidence has emerged over the past 20 years or so. In 1982 it was reported that 95% of UTIs in boys aged 5 days to 8 months were in uncircumcised infants [105].

On a side note, some studies have also shown that men have twice the risk of prostate cancer if uncircumcised.

 

[smartandsexy]

yeah , I have thought that - why has this and the previous thread got me so riled up to post

Maybe it is because circumcision is so alien to our culture here in the UK - the % of boys having the procedure is very low - less than 10% i think - well at least there and there abouts

I have tried to be impartial and listen to the argument - but no I have a son and there is no way in hell I would have let that happen to him - not a chance

It has got me going though !!

It gets me fired up too. I really got caught up in the melee of the last long thread on the topic though, so I've tried to pretty much stay out of this one, though I have been following.

It does seem to make a difference that circumcision is not the norm in our society - which does indicate that the motivations for the procedure are primarily cultural and not medical.

I happen to think that it's unecessary surgery and mutilation and as such constitutes abuse - though I recognise that the parent's intentions are rarely malevolent. But then I'm one of those people that gets really angry when I see tiny kids with their ears pierced too.

*Retreating to the sidelines again*

 

[TumbledLove]

Circumcision is a major contributing factor in the incidence of prostate cancer. (from same link as above)

the incidence of prostate cancer in Asian and European countries - where circumcison rates are low - is tiny compared to what it is in North America - where circumcision rates are high.

 

[glamorilla]

Hey Gord, I respect your right to your opinion and anyone else's as well.

Personally, I think anyone with Penile cancer has bigger things to worry about than blogging about why they weren't circumcised.

As for the plethora of people who are pissed off about being circumcised, I think the majority of them would have some other gripe about life that is the cause of their problems and misery.

But don't make the mistake of thinking penile cancer is the only problem that results from lack of circumcision.

Let's not forget the following also:
Phimosis: This is generally regarded as narrowing of the foreskin orifice so as to prevent retraction of the foreskin over the glans. Phimosis is normal in very young boys, but is gone by age 3 in 90%. If still present after age 6 it is regarded as a problem. Phimosis affects at least 10% of uncircumcised males, the reported rates being.

Paraphimosis: This is when the retracted foreskin cannot be brought back again over the glans and is a very painful problem, relieved by circumcision or slitting the dorsal surface of the foreskin.

Frenular chordee This results from an unusually thick and often tight frenulum and prevents the foreskin from fully retracting, being present in a quarter of all uncircumcised males [110]. The frenulum then tears during intercourse or masturbation. Since scar tissue is generally more fragile and less elastic than normal tissue, the tear often re-occurs causing pain, bleeding and is an impediment to sexual activity. This problem can be solved by excising the frenulum during a circumcision. Frenoplasty (removing just the tight frenulum) is also possible.

Balanitis and posthitis: To paediatric surgeons, the most obvious medical reasons for circumcision are balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin). Both are very painful conditions. The latter is limited to uncircumcised males. Balanitis is seen in 11-13% of uncircumcised men, but in only 2% of those who are circumcised [85, 155]. In uncircumcised diabetic men it is 35% [155]. In boys the incidence of balanitis is twice as high in those who are uncircumcised [97, 126].

Penile skin diseases also include psoriasis, those arising from penile infections , lichen sclerosis, lichen planus, schorrheic dermatitis, and Zoon balanitis. The various conditions have been extensively reviewed [80, 155] and are either much more common in, or totally confined to, uncircumcised males. For example, all patients with plasma cell (Zoon) balanitis, bowenoid papulosis, and non-specific balanoposthitis were uncircumcised [178]. Mycobacterium smegmatis has been implicated Zoon balanitis [80]. Typical symptoms of the latter include erythrema (in 100%), swelling (in 91%), discharge (in 73%), dysuria (in 13%), bleeding (in 2%) and ulceration (in 1%)


Infections of the urinary tract (UTI) are regarded as being common in the pediatric population [157]. The highest prevalence and greatest severity of UTIs is prior to 6 months of age [258, 317]. The association of UTI with lack of circumcision is unequivocal. Most of the evidence has emerged over the past 20 years or so. In 1982 it was reported that 95% of UTIs in boys aged 5 days to 8 months were in uncircumcised infants [105].

On a side note, some studies have also shown that men have twice the risk of prostate cancer if uncircumcised.

you sure know your penises zip!

 

[zipman]

you sure know your penises zip!

I'll be a real contender if I ever switch teams!

 

[Jonny02]

Against

Circumcision in children, who are not old enough to communicate on whether they want there body mutilating, or not, has surely got to be against human rights?


Jonny..................

 

[smartandsexy]

Frenular chordee This results from an unusually thick and often tight frenulum and prevents the foreskin from fully retracting, being present in a quarter of all uncircumcised males [110]. The frenulum then tears during intercourse or masturbation. Since scar tissue is generally more fragile and less elastic than normal tissue, the tear often re-occurs causing pain, bleeding and is an impediment to sexual activity. This problem can be solved by excising the frenulum during a circumcision. Frenoplasty (removing just the tight frenulum) is also possible.

OK, I lied about stepping back.

I think we all recognise there are studies you can cite to support both sides of this debate - but this particular snippet (pun not intended!) just stood out as seeming ludicrous. Are you really telling me that a quarter of uncircumcised men require penile surgery (considering just this problem - presumably there are other issues that would also indicate surgery)? Living in a country where the vast majority of men are uncircumcised, that figure just doesn't ring true to me.

 

[TumbledLove]

Mutilating a baby's penis is not a valid pre-emptive strike against future problems that may or may not occur, and most likely will not occur, since it's a normal part of the body.

This isn't the same as removing a tumor in a baby. This is removing a naturally occuring, and perfectly heathly part of the body (at the time of birth).

Now, if problems come up later on in life, and removing the foreskin is a way to fix the problem, then alright, I'm all for it.

 

[smartandsexy]

Mutilating a baby's penis is not a valid pre-emptive strike against future problems that may or may not occur, and most likely will not occur, since it's a normal part of the body.

This isn't the same as removing a tumor in a baby. This is removing a naturally occuring, and perfectly heathly part of the body (at the time of birth).

Now, if problems come up later on in life, and removing the foreskin is a way to fix the problem, then alright, I'm all for it.

True. One in twelve women will develop breast cancer, but I don't think anyone would advocate the removal of breast tissue after puberty as a preventative measure.

 

[zipman]

OK, I lied about stepping back.

I think we all recognise there are studies you can cite to support both sides of this debate - but this particular snippet (pun not intended!) just stood out as seeming ludicrous. Are you really telling me that a quarter of uncircumcised men require penile surgery (considering just this problem - presumably there are other issues that would also indicate surgery)? Living in a country where the vast majority of men are uncircumcised, that figure just doesn't ring true to me.

After researching the reference, I think the author botched the quote of the study on that one. Here is the reference and good catch!

~~~~~~
"Frenular chordee: implications and treatment.

Griffin AS, Kroovand RL.

Department of Surgery, Wake Forest University Medical Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Twenty of 75 male children undergoing elective circumcision demonstrated a ventral glandular chordee produced by an unusually prominent frenulum. Surgical incision of this prominent band of tissue relaxed the glandular traction (chordee), more adequately exposing the ventral inner prepuce, facilitating skin incisions, and permitting an improved cosmetic and functional outcome.

PMID: 2305537 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

[Gord]

Zip I will be the first to admit that I am shooting from the hip here and not from a position real strength on the science or the stats either way

I know full well that quick googling doesnt always give you correct answers

I have read a few sites - to be honest most of the sites I found were on the whole very negative and on the whole agaisnt the procedure . But if I looked enough I am sure I could find some others that were very pro

But people make judgments or " gut " feels about things and .....well I have made my feelings pretty clear

It does seem strange that there is a huge gulf in the attitudes towards this between Europe and the US - why I dont know. The US is not exactly backwards when it comes to medicine or medical procedures - and neither is Europe so the fact that the two countries have such differing attitudes does puzzle me .

 

[nitengale]

"Mutilation" only happens when the doctor has a hangover.

 

[zipman]

Zip I will be the first to admit that I am shooting from the hip here and not from a position real strength on the science or the stats either way

I know full well that quick googling doesnt always give you correct answers

I have read a few sites - to be honest most of the sites I found were on the whole very negative and on the whole agaisnt the procedure . But if I looked enough I am sure I could find some others that were very pro

But people make judgments or " gut " feels about things and .....well I have made my feelings pretty clear

It does seem strange that there is a huge gulf in the attitudes towards this between Europe and the US - why I dont know. The US is not exactly backwards when it comes to medicine or medical procedures - and neither is Europe so the fact that the two countries have such differing attitudes does puzzle me .

I do agree that the difference is very interesting. In no way am I suggesting any parent do it. I merely think that educating oneself about the pros and cons of it are critical.

I've seen more than a few done so I may have a more casual attitude to it than most who find it so barbaric.

 

[TumbledLove]

The Best Method of Circumcision

The best method is to circumcise about an inch above the doctor's wrist on the hand she or he uses to hold a knife. ...

In later life the circumcised doctor will have a reduced chance of skin cancer, broken bones or hangnails. Accidental injuries have been shown to be significantly reduced by hand circumcision. It will be much cleaner since her or his hand won't be picking buggers any more. ...

Circumcision of a hand is also known to increases sensitivity. The scar of a stump is known to be the most sensitive part of the hand and is more exposed once the hand is removed.

I'm tempted to quote the entire thing, but I'll have mercy and let people choose to read directly from the link.

 

[reddcutie]

lolollollol

 

[smartandsexy]

"Mutilation" only happens when the doctor has a hangover.

mu·ti·late
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.


mu·ti·la·tion
Disfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of a conspicuous or essential part of the body.


mu·ti·la·tion
1 : deprivation of a limb or essential part especially by excision <the mutilation of a body>
2 : an instance of mutilating


mutilation
The act of mutilating, or the state of being mutilated; deprivation of a limb or of an essential part.


mutilation
an injury that deprives you of a limb or other important body part

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mutilation

 

[Marxist]

Calling it mutilation is kinda dramatic, no?

It's hardly essential.

And last time I checked, it worked fine.

 

[TumbledLove]

2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably

Yep, that's me. My foreskin was so damaged that they had to cut it off. and that has left my penis disfigured (having a spoiled appearance).

 

[nitengale]

Call it what you want...

This subject will out live us all...

 

[smartandsexy]

Calling it mutilation is kinda dramatic, no?

It's hardly essential.

And last time I checked, it worked fine.

My labia minora are hardly essential, but if someone decided to lop them off, you'd bet I'd consider it mutilation.

 

[TumbledLove]

Calling it mutilation is kinda dramatic, no?

It's hardly essential.

The same applies to the female clitorus.
Do you also think it's "kinda dramatic" when a female gets her clit cut off?

 

[nitengale]

If a leg is removed, have we mutilated that person?

If a uterus is removed, have we mutilated that person?